Joker: Folie a Deux (2024) Spoiler Thread

[filmlover]

 

Seriously.

 

What the actual fuck even WAS this?

 

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this is among the most poorly assembled movies I can ever recall seeing. This completely unnecessary sequel to its obviously one-off predecessor struggles throughout to justify why it exists beyond the obvious (the first movie made a billion dollars and the increased salaries were too good to turn down), and what they deliver is this disastrous mixture of dull courtroom drama (were they trying to pay tribute to the infamous Seinfeld finale by bringing back virtually everyone from the previous movie just to recap everything that happened in it?), out of place musical numbers, and wink wink Batman references (is Harvey Dent in this for any reason other than to give those familiar with Batman/Gotham City lore something they're familiar with?) that never finds a rhythm or a consistent tone. Maybe a more talented filmmaker could pull all this off, but Todd Phillips, nearly a quarter-century after Road Trip, clearly doesn't have a movie of that level of skill in him and never will, so it all adds up to 138 slow, punishing minutes that show the signs of a project that went through hell in post given how much of the marketing materials aren't even in the final product. The whole thing reeks of a tax write-off that somehow escaped the lot of a studio that's become notorious in recent years for treating numerous finished projects as such.

 

It's really astounding how much this movie and the first one feel like they were made by completely different people behind the camera even though the creative teams were virtually the same. I was no super fan of the first Joker, but at least you could tell that Phillips was actually attempting to make a statement with it while putting a unique spin on Bruce Wayne's most famous (especially on celluloid) nemesis and the Gotham universe. This, on the other hand? It's like they decided to wing it once they received those big fat checks and didn't care if what ended up on the big screen was any good. This is the kind of mess that the inevitable CinemaSins/Honest Trailers videos will have a ball going to town on. It's hard not to feel for the poor actors stranded on the screen.

 

As for those stars? Joaquin Phoenix, after being the undisputed highlight of the first, mostly mails it in here and it's obvious he doesn't have the vocal chops to carry the tunes he sings in this. Given his recent headlines and reports of past professional behavior, it might not have been a bad choice if he had also bailed right before filming started on this fiasco. But of course, the real curiosity is Lady Gaga as Harleen "Lee" Quinzel. I always love me some Gaga, but she's never better than "adequate," though that's probably not her fault that the movie doesn't give her much to work with, especially when there's been reports recently that a lot of her material was cut.

 

Then there's that ending that is more likely to leave audiences straight up angry than divided. To be fair, I did almost admire the boldness of it all. But like the rest of the movie, it just falls flat due to flawed execution. After all of that, poor pathetic Arthur Fleck's ultimate fate is to be stabbed to death by some goon lurking in the background the whole time who then proceeds to cut up his face and become (dun dun dun) The Next Joker as a possible tease for a sequel or spin-off we will never see? I couldn't help but sigh to myself "are you fucking kidding me?" as the lights came up.

 

This is the kind of "what were they thinking?" misguided trainwreck that will likely miss the boat even as a future cult favorite once its already certified reputation as a Cats-level catastrophe has settled. Razzies incoming.

 

D

[Ryan Reynolds]

9 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

Seriously.

 

What the actual fuck even WAS this?

 

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this is among the most poorly assembled movies I can ever recall seeing. This completely unnecessary sequel to its obviously one-off predecessor struggles throughout to justify why it exists beyond the obvious (the first movie made a billion dollars and the increased salaries were too good to turn down), and what they deliver is this disastrous mixture of dull courtroom drama (were they trying to pay tribute to the infamous Seinfeld finale by bringing back virtually everyone from the previous movie just to recap everything that happened in it?), out of place musical numbers, and wink wink Batman references (is Harvey Dent in this for any reason other than to give those familiar with Batman/Gotham City lore something they're familiar with?) that never finds a rhythm or a consistent tone. Maybe a more talented filmmaker could pull all this off, but Todd Phillips, nearly a quarter-century after Road Trip, clearly doesn't have a movie of that level of skill in him and never will, so it all adds up to 138 slow, punishing minutes that show the signs of a project that went through hell in post given how much of the marketing materials aren't even in the final product. The whole thing reeks of a tax write-off that somehow escaped the lot of a studio that's become notorious in recent years for treating numerous finished projects as such.

 

It's really astounding how much this movie and the first one feel like they were made by completely different people behind the camera even though the creative teams were virtually the same. I was no super fan of the first Joker, but at least you could tell that Phillips was actually attempting to make a statement with it while putting a unique spin on Bruce Wayne's most famous (especially on celluloid) nemesis and the Gotham universe. This, on the other hand? It's like they decided to wing it once they received those big fat checks and didn't care if what ended up on the big screen was any good. This is the kind of mess that the inevitable CinemaSins/Honest Trailers videos will have a ball going to town on. It's hard not to feel for the poor actors stranded on the screen.

 

As for those stars? Joaquin Phoenix, after being the undisputed highlight of the first, mostly mails it in here and it's obvious he doesn't have the vocal chops to carry the tunes he sings in this. Given his recent headlines and reports of past professional behavior, it might not have been a bad choice if he had also bailed right before filming started on this fiasco. But of course, the real curiosity is Lady Gaga as Harleen "Lee" Quinzel. I always love me some Gaga, but she's never better than "adequate," though that's probably not her fault that the movie doesn't give her much to work with, especially when there's been reports recently that a lot of her material was cut.

 

Then there's that ending that is more likely to leave audiences straight up angry than divided. To be fair, I did almost admire the boldness of it all. But like the rest of the movie, it just falls flat due to flawed execution. After all of that, poor pathetic Arthur Fleck's ultimate fate is to be stabbed to death by some goon lurking in the background the whole time who then proceeds to cut up his face and become (dun dun dun) The Next Joker as a possible tease for a sequel or spin-off we will never see? I couldn't help but sigh to myself "are you fucking kidding me?" as the lights came up.

 

This is the kind of "what were they thinking?" misguided trainwreck that will likely miss the boat even as a future cult favorite once its already certified reputation as a Cats-level catastrophe has settled. Razzies incoming.

 

D

i'd take this movie any day over the typical studio comic book movies ,  save razzies for garbage like venom

[poweranimals]

At first I thought people were over exaggerating. Most of the movie was actually pretty entertaining. Flawed for sure, but entertaining nonetheless. The musical aspect though was an odd choice as it didn't really advance the plot much. In fact, it would often just bring the flow of the movie to a halt while characters would randomly sing. It would've been better if the songs were at least catchy but apart from a couple stand outs, they were mostly forgettable and they didn't even bother to disguise that Joaquin doesn't have much of a singing voice.

 

Nonetheless though, I didn't think the movie was that bad, but then the ending happened and what the actual fuck? It felt like the director flipped off the audience as the credits rolled. Basically, telling us the last two movies were a complete waste of time. That the guy we were following, the Joker, wasn't even really the Joker. And if he wasn't the Joker, this random guy who is apparently the Joker now, didn't even create the Joker persona. The whole thing just feels like a bit of a clusterfuck. Now, I get that Todd Phillips probably didn't want to make the sequel in the first place and probably wanted to make it so WB couldn't ask for a third, but the whole thing just seems like a "Fuck you" to fans.

 

Either way, I'm glad to be done with this universe; which is a shame because I rewatched the first movie last night and it really was genius what they were able to achieve. Anyway, that's all I really have to say at the moment.

Edited Sunday at 06:11 AM by poweranimals

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

On 10/4/2024 at 8:42 PM, Cmasterclay said:

I legitimately forgot this movie takes place in the Batman universe, even with Harley and Harvey Dent in it. 

What part of "Elseworld" are people not getting? This doesn't take place in the Batman universe. Arthur Fleck isn't Joker. These are just analogous characters loosely based on the world of Batman.

[poweranimals]

2 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

What part of "Elseworld" are people not getting? This doesn't take place in the Batman universe. Arthur Fleck isn't Joker. These are just analogous characters loosely based on the world of Batman.

It is supposed to be an origin story. An Elseworlds in the sense that it's not part of any traditional Batman universe, but still heavily implied that this version of Bruce is on his way to become Batman. Liberties are taken, but still a bridge too far with them killing off the main character of these movies.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

1 minute ago, poweranimals said:

It is supposed to be an origin story. An Elseworlds in the sense that it's not part of any traditional Batman universe, but still heavily implied that this version of Bruce is on his way to become Batman. Liberties are taken, but still a bridge too far with them killing off the main character of these movies.

Nah, the Bruce Wayne was too young to realistically ever be pitted against Joaquin's Joker. This was always a very loose adaptation of the Batman world, and very much an alternate take on it.

[Ryan Reynolds]

i liked this movie but have to say the ending is the weakest part

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

People seem fine accepting that Elphaba is a different take on the Wicked Witch that's not supposed to be an exact replica of the L. Frank Baum version or the 1939 film version, so why not just accept Arthur Fleck as a possible precursor to a more traditional Joker figure, Batman Beyond style Joker gang, or sympathetic reinvention. Somethings can just exist in their own space.

[Rusty]

1 hour ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

People seem fine accepting that Elphaba is a different take on the Wicked Witch that's not supposed to be an exact replica of the L. Frank Baum version or the 1939 film version, so why not just accept Arthur Fleck as a possible precursor to a more traditional Joker figure, Batman Beyond style Joker gang, or sympathetic reinvention. Somethings can just exist in their own space.

This would suggest CBM fans have anything other than a comically stratospheric sense of entitlement for any movie based on comic book characters.

[Mad Max007]

A real ballsy ending would have been Gaga killing him in the stairs, which was shot apparently.  But I guess it would have triggered the incel crowd even more.

[wattage]

1 hour ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

People seem fine accepting that Elphaba is a different take on the Wicked Witch that's not supposed to be an exact replica of the L. Frank Baum version or the 1939 film version, so why not just accept Arthur Fleck as a possible precursor to a more traditional Joker figure, Batman Beyond style Joker gang, or sympathetic reinvention. Somethings can just exist in their own space.

The entire conceit of Wicked is that the events of the movie happened but that the deeper context/reality was lost because of the preconceived notions and prejudice. Not really seeing how that's an analog to a story that's ostensibly an adaptation that makes no sense in any mainline continuity of Batman that kills off the main character of the film who's supposed to be a major reoccurring villain in the universe he's from. Beyond him not fitting in to "canon", he was the protagonist and people don't like when the protagonist dies unless they absolutely hate the character. That's just how people are. 

 

I think it's silly that after the first movie that some people didn't understand that this was never going to tie in to any normal sort of continuity. But that's definitely not the only problem a lot of people have with the film. They don't care about how this can fit into the greater lore and future "real" Joker or his gang or whatever the hell, they just don't like that the movie is a sequel to a movie called Joker and they thought the movies were about Joker and he was the protagonist being followed for two movies and then he gets murdered. It's a fairly uncomplicated reaction. 

[wattage]

3 minutes ago, Mad Max007 said:

A real ballsy ending would have been Gaga killing him in the stairs, which was shot apparently.  But I guess it would have triggered the incel crowd even more.

I absolutely thought that was how he was going to die. That she would fulfill the fantasies he was having. I thought she would push him down the stairs actually. Watching the movie it became increasingly clear to me that he was going to die so I thought "this is it" but it wasn't and was just a wet fart instead. 

 

I am glad she didn't do that because the incel crowd would be rioting even worse so thanks to Todd for sparing me the headache. 

Edited Sunday at 08:40 AM by wattage

[Mulder]

2 hours ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

People seem fine accepting that Elphaba is a different take on the Wicked Witch that's not supposed to be an exact replica of the L. Frank Baum version or the 1939 film version, so why not just accept Arthur Fleck as a possible precursor to a more traditional Joker figure, Batman Beyond style Joker gang, or sympathetic reinvention. Somethings can just exist in their own space.

If this was the case, the first Joker movie would've been rejected entirely. That Joker has nothing in common with the comics. People just don't like this movie.

[PlatnumRoyce]

5 hours ago, filmlover said:

and it's obvious he doesn't have the vocal chops to carry the tunes he sings in this

The weird thing is...he does! He's absolutely incredible in Walk the Line but for the most part that just didn't carry over. Some of it (early songs) was clearly at least partially a creative choice due to the character's voice but even the stronger songs in the middle/end don't bring it home.

Edited Sunday at 10:42 AM by PlatnumRoyce

[filmlover]

2 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

The weird thing is...he does! He's absolutely incredible in Walk the Line but for the most part that just didn't carry over. Some of it (early songs) was clearly at least partially a creative choice due to the character's voice but even the stronger songs in the middle/end don't bring it home.

His singing was good in Walk the Line though there it was leaning more towards Johnny Cash imitation than his actual voice.

 

I don't think Arthur dying at the end is a terrible idea and could've been something special. In theory. In execution, though? The Future Joker needed to play a much larger role than simply being shown making creepy faces in the background the whole movie for it to have any meaning. You can tell that all involved approached this with such poor planning as to the direction they wanted it to go in to the point where it's reasonable to question why they even bothered to make it at all (besides the money, of course).

[PlatnumRoyce]

23 minutes ago, filmlover said:

The Future Joker needed to play a much larger role than simply being shown making creepy faces in the background the whole movie for it to have any meaning. You can tell that all involved approached this with such poor planning as to the direction they wanted it to go in to the point where it's reasonable to question why they even bothered to make it at all (besides the money, of course).

I think the ending sort of was an awful decision because that character can't have any more development without messing with his intended function. The film's musical choice to explicitly underline that this specific person is the "Son of Joker" plays into the idea that there is one canonical joker who will trade punches with The Bat-Man in the same way that the first movie goes out of its way to include Bruce Wayne but nothing else in the movies expresses any interest in that "canonical" setup. 

I think having a random extra stab Phoenix was a perfectly defensible move and I think it would have gone down a lot better if they panned out to a broader vision of urban unrest and random acts of violence. 

Edited Sunday at 01:57 PM by PlatnumRoyce

[filmlover]

Did anyone else find it odd that they kept name-dropping a TV movie about Arthur's crimes and they never show us any of it? This movie sets itself up for the perfect opportunity to recruit a famous actor for a fun cameo as TV Movie Arthur Fleck and can't even get that right. What a joke!

[Blaze Heatnix]

Wow, that was 100% garbage.  I've never seen so many walkouts for a comic book movie before. 

 

20 people ( I did count ) left the theater as soon as Joker got raped by the 3 guards. What the hell was Todd Phillips thinking? That's the most disgusting thing and putrid thing he could have made with a beloved DC character. 

 

Hell, this is one of the very few movies to really piss me off, to the point that when it ended, I would like told the director to screw himself for destroying and insulting such rich material and characters. Don't even talk about the ending.

 

There were tons of places where this story could have gone, but Phillips and his crew ( Phoenix included, it seems he also had a part in the script and changing//adding things before and during filming ) truly wanted to insult people who liked the first movie. 

 

The musical element is the least of the problems with this movie. Horrible experience. This deserved an F CinemaScore. It probably didn't get one, thanks to Gaga's fans and ´Phoenix's fans who enjoyed the acting ( it was fine ) and the photography that was good.

 

I would gladly ( and I say gladly ) watch Morbius 300 times rather than seeing this Joker 2 again. Morbius is a bad movie, but it had its charm and some ok/nice action so we could at least laugh at this movie. Joker 2 was disgusting, offensive and insulting. I would even watch Fant4stic ( Josh Trank's joint ) again. 

[Firepower]

11 hours ago, Mad Max007 said:

A real ballsy ending would have been Gaga killing him in the stairs, which was shot apparently.  But I guess it would have triggered the incel crowd even more.

There was another ending which was or wasn't shot where it's implied Harley ordered a hit on Arthur in prison and it wasn't a random murder. After ending of the final movie Harley reads a newspaper, finds out Arthur was stabbed, not surprised by this and takes over Joker persona, standing in front of crowd of cheering stans just like Arthur in the first one. Maybe that's second alternate ending mentioned in news besides Harley killing Arthur near the stairs.

[wattage]

8 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I think the ending sort of was an awful decision because that character can't have any more development without messing with his intended function. The film's musical choice to explicitly underline that this specific person is the "Son of Joker" plays into the idea that there is one canonical joker who will trade punches with The Bat-Man in the same way that the first movie goes out of its way to include Bruce Wayne but nothing else in the movies expresses any interest in that "canonical" setup. 

I think having a random extra stab Phoenix was a perfectly defensible move and I think it would have gone down a lot better if they panned out to a broader vision of urban unrest and random acts of violence. 

I think this underlines why it was such a wet fart. It needed to be one of two things and not both. An act of violence by his follower and a display of toxic fandom and focus on that and that alone, on how he was used and dehumanized and then discarded (people would still hate it largely but it would at least be coherent for the rest of us) or the movie needs to be focusing on this follower in a substantial way as a character and lead in to "the real Joker". He basically would have to have the narrative development that Harley was getting. The toxic fan, we see him projecting onto Arthur and refusing to see him as he is. The disappointment due to entitlement that leads to violence and him subsuming the persona into himself. As is, it's just a weird in between. 

 

I remember realizing that he was finally gonna get killed as id been anticipating for what felt like half the movie at that point, and he gets followed and I'm like...really is this gonna be it? Lame. And then it quickly went from just lame to "what the fuck" with the stupid blurred out background of him slicing his face up. Just...why? Who was that decision for? The shoddily done hints to canon that they insist on made it worse, either you want to focus on Arthur Fleck or not. But inevitably the conversation becomes about whether he's "the real Joker" once the deliberate and sloppy decision is made to directly reference the backstory and iconography of a specific Joker character. At that point it's a foregone conclusion that the movie stops being about Arthur to the audience and they start asking about who's "the real Joker" and getting upset that the protagonist of the Joker movies wasn't really Joker and it's just some guy.